Fetch Discord server members with roles and join dates to audit or manage community access. Provide a guild ID and limit (1-100).
List members of the server with roles and join dates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max members to fetch (1-100, default: 50) | |
| guildId | No | Discord server ID (defaults to DISCORD_GUILD_ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the return content but says nothing about pagination beyond the limit param, rate limits, or the privileged-intent/auth requirements typical of member listing. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for the operation and leads with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read/list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. But with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, it leaves gaps around pagination behavior and the distinction from search_members.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, guildId) are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no further parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List), resource (members of the server), and the returned fields (roles and join dates), so the purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling search_members, which an agent would also consider for member lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the obvious alternative search_members. The agent is left to infer the difference between listing vs. searching members entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.